Carleton University - Raven Yearbook (Ottawa, Ontario Canada)

Page 10 text:

'llvillnly i i , 1 ip ii ' L, .lf ly, ll-4 1 1' .Ay My M

Page 9 text:

ln a year when the actions of students in universities across Canada have been the subject of headlines, editorials and otherwise apprehensive scrutiny, it would be misleading to portray a year at one of these institutions solely in the traditional terms of its social activities, sporting events and beer hashes. However strong one's reactions to, or however weak one's awareness of, the diverse issues at Simon Fraser, Saskatchewan, NlcGill, Sir George Williams or Carleton, there is no denying their common expression of an increased emphasis on the student's role in his environment. CarIeton's variety of student activism has been somewhat less spectacular than elsewhere. If it had not been for Professor Dunn's denunciation of our sexIess co-eds , and the claim of Professors Nlathews and Steele that there is an increasing influx of foreign teachers on Canadian campuses, we might have received no nation-wide attention whatsoever. However, the changes instigated this year are no less significant and the student's interest in the nature and quality of his education should be no less sincere. This year students acquired the opportunity to convert interest into action and gained some ground in that Administrative domain known as the decision-making process . lt was a change, and a necessary one. When the ballot boxes were set up in the junction this year, as they frequently were, it usually meant more than the selection of another faculty queen. But things like New University Government are not self-sustaining. The necessary ingredient in education reform and admittedly in beer bashes as well, is the participation of people. Neither activity is peculiar to Carleton, only the people behind them. However one may attempt to define the past eight months, one is ultimately forced to resort to a description of the individuals who made it distinctive. Consequently the following pages depict the people - the popular, the unknown, the personality, the academic - who participated in the issues, the protests, the changes, the lectures, the social activities and the sports events. lt is, after all, the people one knew that make a university what it is, that make a year memorable, that make Carleton unique. tude CSS lit sstudentpo .2 :: E

Page 11 text:

As a carleton graduate, circa 1969, you are probably extinct. The implementation of the white paper on New University Government this academic year may give future generations of Carleton graduates more than just the eternal piece of paper. They may have an education. At the student level the passage of the N.U.G. document was a bitter struggle which centred around the rate of University reform. Activitist Hans Brown, backed by some members of Council, charged President Lampert with attempting to railroad the paper through Council without adequate provision for discussion. Lampert counter-attacked by reminding Councillors of his electoral mandate and his duty to implement N.U.G. He backed up his stance with a threat to resign. And so it went. The clash of personalities and ideologies that tended to split the Council throughout the year again was allowed to intervene and marred the possibility of any effective Council action on the implementation of N.U.G. Council members at large were given only fifteen minutes to read the document as preparation for debate. Only a handful present knew that Davidson Dunton had arranged a press conference to announce N.U.G. passage the next afternoon. While N.U.G. was inevitably accepted, the more radical reformers managed to initiate a referendum on some contentious amendments proposed for the N.U.G. plan. ln overwhelming numbers, students turned out to vote after an encouraging amount of reasoned debate, discussion and published information. The student body agreed to accept N.U.G. as it stood providing that amendments be subsequently negotiated. They wanted student participation at the departmental level, at least at a 1 to 3 ratio with faculty, opennes of deliberation of all university bodies, and a guaranteed number of students on the Senate and Board of Governors. They rejected student involvement in appointments and other personnel matters of staff and faculty members by a mere seven votes. They rejected student involvement in academic review of student files by a margin of about 400 votes. This margin tended to correspond with the split of students who wanted to accept and negotiate and those who wanted to write in the amendments before N.U.G. passage. On the positive side, departments announced plans which, for the most part, included the election of students in numbers which exceeded those outlined in N.U.G. Four students were elected to the Senate and one sits on the Board of Governors. ln the realm of reform, the Senate approved an Arts faculty board proposal concerning the abolition of first year requirements pending individual departmental decisions. And then it died. Students seemingly digested N.U.G. but had little to show for their efforts... except for the occasional ulcer. Perhaps vice-president George Hunter hit the critical point when he expressed disappointment with the rejection of some of the amendments. He observed, lf students aren't going to be involved in the appointment of faculty, how are they going to change the decision-making process? -9 7